new skis require a different skiing style?

Chuck wrote in
:

Alan Baker wrote in
:

Except that the whole idea of modern skiing is that there is *no*
"free foot". Harb appears to be advocating edging with only the
outside leg and that's just not what the best in the world are doing.


Lito teaches the same thing. He refers to the inside ski as "just along
for the ride" in his latest book.

Currently I'm reading Ron LeMaster's book "Skiing, The Nuts and Bolts"
and he certainly espouses radical to complete weight transfer to
the outside ski. This is a good read if you are technically inclined
because it talks about the physics of skiing in language that anyone
can understand. Good history of the progression of skiing technique
and why technique has changed. In short, The snow has changed over
the past 75 years, as has equipment, hence skiing has changed to
compensate in one way or another.

My first lessons were clearly in Hannes Schneider's Arlberg technique.

Ron's book is available from him or from PSIA. If you need and
address, contact me off-line.

RW

Mary Malmros wrote:
lal_truckee writes:
Walt wrote:

Personally, I think
shoulder width is too wide, but there are some very good skiers who
adopt a stance that wide.

Either you're hanging out with a whole bunch of ultra-wimps with
extremely narrow shoulders, or you have an odd idea of what a good skier
looks like - I don't think I've ever seen a "good skier" who habitually
skis with "shoulder width" skis (measured relatively to his combined
force vector.) On me that'd be about 20 inches apart, and I consider
myself a narrow-shouldered-mathematician

Well, maybe you're a literal-minded mathematician. I've heard the
instructions "place your feet shoulder-width apart" in more sports
and physical skills than I can name, and it has never been used to
mean, "place your feet with as many inches between them as your
shoulders are wide." Instead, it has been used to mean that the
feet should be placed more or less pelvis-width apart, neither
angling in nor out. Why don't we just say "pelvis-width apart"? I
don't know, but probably because while most people know what
shoulders are, a lot of idjits aren't too surre what a pelvis is.

That's a fascinating observation, Mary.

As a trained mathematician, I have a bad case of literalism. If
somebody says "place your feet shoulder-width apart" I assume they
mean place your feet shoulder-width apart, not place your feet
_SOME_OTHER_BODY_PART_WIDTH_ apart. Admittedly, this literalism gets
me in trouble sometimes; the other day I saw a sign that said
"Restroom Closed. Please Use Floor Below." But I digress....

Pelvis-width seems about right, modulo the inherent differences in our
individual physiognomies. As a guy who's shoulders are quite a bit
wider than his pelvis, the shoulder width thing never worked for me,
and I could never understand why anybody would want to ski with their
feet that far apart unless they were so unstable that they were afraid
they'd topple over sideways if they adjusted their stance to a more
reasonable position.


--
// Walt
//
// There is no Volkl Conspiracy

Jiyang Chen wrote:

So with the new carving skis, do you apply pressure to the downhill boot
only as described in Lito's book, or is it equal pressure?

You do whatever works. If Lito's approach works for you, take that
approach. If not find another apporoach.


--
// Walt
//
// There is no Volkl Conspiracy

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:59:53 -0500, Walt
wrote:

You do whatever works.

Finally, advise that actually makes sense!

-Astro

LAL Truckee wrote:

PSIA is good for getting a newbie to
the Intermediate Rut - not so good at getting the newbie beyond, IMO.

Actually, they/we really aren't if the beginner progression
that's been the classic through the last few years is taught.

PSIA is much better at making a parallel skier a better skier.

Many (myself probably the worst offender) are moving
to a one ski Harbish program for beginners from day one.
For *beginners* mind you. Not as the mantra for the rest
of one's skiing life. The goal is to be able to move onto
skiing two feet as one needs to or desires to.

But there's nothing at all wrong with teaching a student
to ski one footed first, then two footed later.

The differences are,

Harb doesn't use a wedge, the newest "pick up the tail"
progressions do, believing that an open parallel turn is
actually nothing but half a wedge turn, with the inside ski
matching the outside. It's the same motion to initiate either
turn. To initiate a parallel turn, just make *half* a wedge,
and match the inside ski (at first being matched by simply
picking up the tail and setting it down next to the outside
ski).

Also, Harb feels that the phantom move or such is *all*
one needs throughout all of skidom. I don't know of any
one else that agrees with that including myself. It's nice
to keep both skis on the snow.

In addition, there's a big move toward absolute, total
emphasis on hand position above all else for a beginner.
I don't know that Harb is making this emphasis.

As far as racers up or down unweighting, to me all I see
is that they mostly just cross over without much of an
unweight at all. Cross over, change the lead, and drive
the knees and hips forward and into the turn.

As far as how close one "should" keep the skis to each
other, there *is* no "should". Do what makes you feel
comfortable, and do what the situation demands. Any
of it will work in the long run, unless your skis hit each
other in the sides.

"BoftheW" wrote in message
...
The subject of skiing technique always brings out interesting comments
from
people, given their various backgrounds and how/where they learned to ski.
Some
sample comments from this thread and my own personal comments to them:




foot2foot:

.You can't get much closer because the skis will hit each
other. As well as: It basically locks you into doing nothing much
more than repetitive, boring "S" turns down the hill.


Comment: not that I advocate this 'style' but I'm sure Stein (and
Stenmark)
would argue that it is not 'boring' or 'repetitve'.


Ach. I can't argue, but what I'm really talking about is that
old European style where the hips wag back and forth over
the skis and the body moves laterally in a sort of serpentine
motion. Close skis were a hallmark of this style, but really,
all *this style* is good for is linked turns fairly close to the
fall line. It's more of a "recreationally taught" style than a
race technique. If you have seen it, you know what I mean,
once you do, you will recognize it from just my description
most likely.

It's no good for making turns of various radii as demanded
by the slope, or as desired by the skier. The style itself
locks you into a limited realm.

In article ,
lal_truckee wrote:

John Moore wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:36:02 -0600, "Marty"
wrote:


Yes indeed. I'm looking at a sequence shot of Von Gruenigen, Bode Miller,
and Eric Schlopy (the highest form of expert that you can attain) in an
Alpine Masters ski mag from October 2001. That is exactly what I see. The
only difference between Bode and Eric to Von G., is that Von G. uses an "up
un-weighting" technique instead of the "down un-weighting" technique that
Eric and Bode use. The un-weighting comes during the transtion of one turn
to the next. Ski width stays pretty much static all the time. Very cool
sequesnce of photos. Hip almost touching the ground angulation - Harb woud
be toast here, or he'd be lifting the inside ski off the ground to get these
angles. No, looking at Von G., I don't think Harb would be able to pull
these angles off at all - ever.


Amusing you should mention Michael Von Gruenigen because a clip of
him skiing is used in Harb's video (presumably with his authorisation)
to demonstrate Harb's 'phantom move'. His skiing seems to show exactly
the points Harb is making - he is lifting and tipping his inside ski
and bringing it in close to the stance ski. (He also shows Thomas
Grandi and Kjetil-Andre Aamodt doing pretty much the same stuff).
Funny, eh?

Von Gruenigen's skis are about as close together as they can get
(relative to force vector) here
http://www.ski-and-ski.com/work/Gallery/MVG-PC03gs.htm

Check out this:

http://www.rmmskiracing.org/video/20...S-MVG-final.mp
g

Particularly, check out the sequence of turns from about the half-way
point of the video onward (coincidentally, the announcer says something
right about then about recording Von Gruenigen if you want a perfect
example of how it's done).

As he transitions from turn to turn Von Gruenigen's feet are...

....shoulder width apart (or thereabouts).

Harb's "phantom move" is nowhere to be seen.


But I'm a Rahlves fan, having watched him from a wee tyke ...
http://www.ski-and-ski.com/work/Gallery/RahlvesKitzbuhel02sg.htm
Pretty close - no? About 10 inxhes, I'd say.

Gee. He's coming of the lip of a jump in a downhill. Maybe he wants to
be compact in the air...


Here's some Tomba to illustrate a point
Close skis - in the turn
http://www.ski-and-ski.com/work/Gallery/TombaAre.htm

Closer, yes. But what's important is that the feet are the appropriate
distance apart for the angulation of the turn, *and they'll stay that
way* as he transitions from turn to turn.

Want to see what I mean? Okay:

http://www.rmmskiracing.org/video/20...L-Palander-fin
al.mpg

Check out the the transition between the second gate and the third (just
after the camera cuts to in front of the skier)

Feet? Shoulder width (or thereabouts)



After a turn - note the independent skis - he doesn't try to keep them
the same distance apart all the way through a turn - the skis carve
independant radii http://www.ski-and-ski.com/work/Gallery/TombaNevada.htm
Tomba again, close, but completely independent arcs - if he tried to
hold both arcs he'd land on his face
http://www.ski-and-ski.com/work/Gallery/TombaFinal.htm

Finally, for Der Kaiser fans, here's a little independent leg action at
Wengen
http://www.ski-and-ski.com/work/Gallery/KlammerWen.htm

Yeah. I'm *sure* Klammer would tell you he's in *perfect* form there. g



It seems that many people here are disparaging what Harald Harb says
without actually knowing what he says.

No. They couldn't be. Not that.
Some people will believe the PSIA has a lock on ski know-how in spite of
the observation of their own eyes. PSIA is good for getting a newbie to
the Intermediate Rut - not so good at getting the newbie beyond, IMO.

Actually, I just had a look at pretty much all of his online lessons.

It seems to me his "phantom move" is designed to overcome the deficiency
of too narrow a stance.

To explain, Harb's "phantom move" is to take the about-to-be inside ski
of the turn, lift it slightly, and roll the lower leg of that ski in the
direction of the new turn.

This illustrates my point perfectly. If the skis were an more
appropriate distance apart (for the speed, terrain and intensity of turn
intended) there'd be no *need* to lift the inside ski and set it down as
some later point in the turn.



(I should point out that I'm not a disciple, just someone curious as
to whether his teaching technique, which looks very promising,
actually works. It's certainly helped me in the past, but I've never
actually been to a PMTS class).

A few days of Harb or Tejada-Flores will get you over the hump better
than a year's worth of PSIA lessons, IMO.


--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article ,
"sjjohnston" wrote:

"Goldenset" wrote in message
om...
I was informed that these carvers are best used when
feet are should width apart rather than that smooth and cool looking
way of keeping the boots together (which I'm still trying to work
on!).

You sure inspired a chorus of comments.

A few thoughts (as if they were needed):

In my view, people who say "Your feet must be x distance apart," or "y% of
your weight must be on your outside ski," are too limited. You should
understand you have the flexibility to do what works, depending on the snow
condition and situation and the peculiarities of your own physique and
balance and reactions.

Ironically, I think the "feet wide apart" argument really started out not
as, "Your feet *must* be shoulder width apart," but rather as, "Don't listen
to those fools who say your feet must be within an inch of each other --
it's okay for them to be pretty far apart ... even shoulder width."

It seems to me (and this agrees with some of what others have said) that
shoulder width is on the wide side. If you're feeling okay with 'em that
wide apart, I wouldn't criticize you for it (unless it's causing a problem
in the particular situation), but I wouldn't tell you force them that wide
apart either. On the other hand, if you're skiing with your boots touching
(or within a few inches), I'd tell you to loosen up and let your stance get
a little wider. Once you're used to a wider stance, it should feel more
natural than a really narrow stance.




That would pretty much be my take on it too.

What determines appropriate width apart for the skis on the snow is the
type of turn being executed and on what terrain.

Once that is understood to be the determining factor, why would you want
to add extra movement and "retract" the skis to closer together between
the turns?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article ,
Walt wrote:

Jiyang Chen wrote:

So with the new carving skis, do you apply pressure to the downhill boot
only as described in Lito's book, or is it equal pressure?

You do whatever works. If Lito's approach works for you, take that
approach. If not find another apporoach.

Lot's of things "work".

But some work better than others.

g

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Richard Walsh wrote:

In short, The snow has changed over
the past 75 years...

Do you mean "manufactured and/or groomed" or something completely
different like global warming?

--
Cheers,
Bev
_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_
When you stop bitching, you start dying.